The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.196 of 2017 Umasankar Nayak …. Petitioner Laxmi Priya Munda -versus- Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate …. Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 08.
Decision
ORDER 21.01.2025 1. The petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has assailed the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai, whereby cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 354/354(A) of I.P.C. read with Section 3(xi) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 has been taken against the petitioner. 2. Initially an F.I.R. being Rourkela Mahila P.S. Case No.35 of 2015 was registered against the present petitioner on the allegation that on 14.05.2015 at about 8.00 A.M. while the complainant was going to Champajharan temple to perform Pooja, suddenly two unknown culprits came in a motorcycle and snatched away her vanity bag containing valuables and Rs.4,500/-. The complainant went to Chandiposh Police Station Page 1 of 6 to lodge the report, she came across the present petitioner, who was posted as Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. The petitioner allegedly used filthy language against the complainant and outraged her modesty by rubbing his hand on her breast and waist. When the complainant raised objection, the petitioner by aspersion on her caste said “TU ADVASI MUNDA MAIKINA CHOOTA LOK PATIKARNAHI”. Out of fear, the complainant left the Police Station. The complainant has alleged that she has been running around for two days to get the F.I.R. registered and eventually after much persuasion and running around, Rourkela Mahila P.S. Case No.35 of 2015 has been registered. 3. The investigation in the present case was carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Rourkela and vide its report U/S 173 Cr.P.C dated 29.06.2015 concluded that there is no case made out against the petitioner. The operative part of the Final Form reads as under: “During investigation I have examined the Complt., visited the spot at Champajharan temple as well as Chandiposh PS., examined the witnesses at the spot and it is transpired that the priest and the shopkeeper present on the relevant time and date could not notice anything wrong with the lady. Though the lady was waiting at the temple side, neither she had offered puja nor complain for help against her snatching. Later she arrived at Chandiposh PS at about 10.00 A.M. where she alleged to have been outraged by Umakanta Nayak. But by examining the other staff inside and outside of P.S. and local market it is found the complt. after getting down from the Bus, charged her mobile bearing No.9437768875 in the clinic of Shisira Biswas and talked to few persons and came to Chandiposh P.S. where she talked to sentry constable and Home Guards present. Subsequently she met the in-charge officer SI Nayak and talked to her after being allow sit on the chair. The sentry constable was present there very well. After taking she went back without giving formal F.I.R. and met several persons and known police staff including lady staff but she did not complain about the outrage issue even she met her party workers but did not report. Further she had talked to her friend but did not share. From the investigation it is found she had talked as many as 32 times to one Cell No.9438392205 is being Page 2 of 6 used by one Rajendra Munda, reportedly her paramour who was arrested in Lahunipara P.S. case No.141, dtd.27.12.2014. It was presumed by Sri R. Munda that SI Nayak of Chandiposh P.S. became instrument for his arrest for which a project was foisted to net the SI. The case is supervised by Shri R.B. Panigrahi, OPS-I, Addl. S.P. Bonai and I have complied the instruction imparted in S. Note and sought for order from S.P. Rourkela, S.P. Rourkela pleased to pass order vide No.1525 dtd.27.06.2015 to return the case as false.” 4. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned closure report filed by the Police, the Opposite Party-informant filed a protest petition before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai being 1.C.C. Case No.27 of 2015 on 01.08.2015. She has made specific allegation against the petitioner, inter alia, stating as under: “2. That on 14.05.15, at about 8 a.m. in the morning hour while the complainant was going to Champajharan temple to perform Pooja at the point of time suddenly two unknown culprits came by a motor cycle and snatched away the vanity bag of the complainant in which Rs.4,500/- was therein the Vanity Bag and after the incident the complainant went to Chandiposh Police Station to report the matter but the accused person told that “TU AMA KATHA BUJH’ and the accused being a general person intentionally with a view to outrage the modesty of the complainant molested her by rubbing his hand on the back of the complainant for which the complainant got up from the chair at that point of time the accused person again rubbed his hand on the chest and waist of the complainant and when the complainant protested such illegal action/attitude of the accused person at that point of time, the accused person scolded the complainant that “TU ADVASI MUNDA MAIKINA CHOOTA LOK PATIKARNAHI” for which the complainant left the Police Station being ashamed and fear and the complainant felt humiliated and left the police station and that thereafter the complainant came out side of the Police Station and told the incident occurred inside the office of the accused person before the staff of the Police station, but the staff of the Chandiposh Police Station out of fear of the accused person who is the In- Charge of the P.S. did not tell anything for which the complainant told the fact to witness No.2 over mobile and there after the complainant went to Bonaigarh and lodged a report against the accused person before the S.D.P.O. Bonaigarh (Witness No.4) and the S.D.P.O. Bonaigarh duly received the report of the complainant and told her to come on the next date i.e. 15.05.15 to the spot at Chandiposh Police Station and thereafter, the complainant came to her village and narrated the entire incident Page 3 of 6 occurred at Chandiposh Police Station and near Champajharan Temple and also the act committed by the accused person and also snatch of the vanity bag containing Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred) before the Witness No.2 and 3 and out of shame went to the stage of depression.” 5. The specific allegation as has been reproduced from the protest petition has also been supported by the initial statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. The statement of the other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, they too supported the complainant version. 6. By taking into consideration the narration of the complaint supported by the initial statement of the complainant and the other witnesses, the trial court vide impugned order dated 16.02.2016 has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 354/354(A) of I.P.C. read with Section 3(xi) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989.The petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this petition questioning the same. 7. Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the investigation has been carried out by a higher rank Police Officer and found no case is made out against the petitioner. The present case is lingering since 2015. He has taken me to the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to persuade this Court that indeed no case is made out against the petitioner. The protest petition has been filed by the complainant out of vengeance and with a motivated design. 8. I have carefully perused the entire record placed before me particularly the protest petition, initial statement and the Final Form filed by the Police. I am not persuaded by the contention raised by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel. 9. Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned counsel appearing for the sole Page 4 of 6 Opposite Party submits that reading of the allegation supported by the initial statement makes out a case against the petitioner for the alleged offences, cognizance of which has been taken by the court below. At the stage of cognizance, the law doesn’t permits the trial court to appreciate the evidence in detail as has been attempted by the learned Senior Counsel to persuade the Court. The only requirement at this stage is to arrive at a subjective satisfaction as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. He submits that the trial court has rightly taken cognizance, no fault could be found from the impugned order. 10. It is apt to rely on the judgement of the Apex Court in the context of ambit and power of the trial court to take cognizance of offences. In Rashmji Kumar (smt) Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, AIRONLINE 1996 SC 699, the court held that- “It is fairly settled legal position that at the time of taking cognisance of the offence, the Court has to consider only the averments made in the complaint or in the charge-sheet filed under Section 173, as the case may be. It was held in State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164] that it is not open for the Court to sift or appreciate the evidence at that stage with reference to the material and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out for proceeding further in the matter. It is equally settled law that it is open to the Court, before issuing the process, to record the evidence and on consideration of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence thus adduced, it is required to find out whether an offence has been made out. On finding that such an offence has been made out and after taking cognizance thereof, process would be issued to the respondent to take further steps in the matters.” 11. I have given a careful consideration to the facts of the case and the contention raised by both the parties at the Bar and arrive at a conclusion that the impugned order requires no indulgence at this stage. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of the petition shall not preclude the petitioner to resort Page 5 of 6 to any remedy available to him under law at any stage even before the trial court or any competent court of jurisdiction. Kar Judge (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASISH KUMAR KAR Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2025 17:39:56 Page 6 of 6